Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Nutrient-trading programs can reduce bay pollution

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation appreciates the concern about nutrient trading expressed by Dr. Robert S. Lawrence of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ("Nutrient trading a dirty deal for the bay, Dec. 9). We would like to present some additional information to the conversation about this complicated and controversial topic.

We agree with Dr. Lawrence that any trading program that allows local waters to remain dirty is unacceptable. Reducing pollution so that local waterways and the bay meet water quality standards is the ultimate goal of the Clean Water Blueprint for the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams. It is also required by the Clean Water Act.

In addition, Dr. Lawrence is right that the Environmental Protection Agency and the states need to be more active in enforcing existing law. Whether it is a concentrated animal feeding operation, a wastewater treatment operation or a municipality treating runoff from urban streets, polluters who violate regulations or laws should be held accountable.

However, enforcing existing laws and regulations is but one arrow in our quiver. Trading is another. Nutrient trading programs, in particular, provide one of the only mechanisms to quantify and offset pollution associated with new development. Experts believe that because of the high cost of reducing urban storm water runoff, the most likely "buyers" in trading markets will be local governments. That means all of us as taxpayers.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Choose Clean Water Coalition support a list of 10 principles that ensure a trading program will result in real pollution reductions and protection against pollution "hot spots."

Our bottom line is that we will not agree to any trades, no matter how much money they save, if they fail to insure the following:

•Water quality must be protected or improved — no exceptions. Trades must not degrade local water quality, and trading programs should be structured in ways that result in a net improvement to water quality.

•Before an entity can sell credits, it must have achieved its targeted baseline for pollution reduction. Credits can be sold only when sellers goes beyond what is necessary to achieve their share of pollution reductions.

•Accountability, transparency, and verification are essential. For trading to be viable, the public has to be able to review, comment on, and even challenge a trade.

Trading is complicated — the proverbial "devil is in the details." We believe these obstacles can be overcome, however, and that when they have been, trading could be one of the tools to achieve what Dr. Lawrence, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the public agree on: Clean, safe water for all is an urgent and immediate goal.

The Maryland Department of the Environment is committed to a formal process among all the stakeholders starting in January to work through how we account for new growth and also how we work through all the details of trading. Having perspectives such as Dr. Lawrence's will ensure that the connection between pollution and human health risks is addressed.

Beth McGee

The writer is senior water quality scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • What about Pa. manure?
      What about Pa. manure?

      On an almost recurring basis lately, The Sun has devoted itself to bringing to everyone's attention the Eastern Shore poultry industry's polluted runoff flowing into the Chesapeake Bay ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13). Attention should be directed to the Amish...

    • New rules needed to protect Eastern Shore waterways
      New rules needed to protect Eastern Shore waterways

      After talking about it for years, Maryland finally has proposed long-overdue regulations on phosphorous pollution from animal manure in the Chesapeake Bay ("Hogan vows to fight farm pollution rules," Dec. 8).

    • Big Ag must be held to account for bay pollution
      Big Ag must be held to account for bay pollution

      Dan Rodricks' arguments for protecting the Chesapeake Bay from pollution from chicken farms could have been even stronger ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13).

    • Chicken industry threatens all other bay businesses
      Chicken industry threatens all other bay businesses

      Dan Rodricks' column on Gov.-elect Larry Hogan and the Chesapeake Bay missed an important fact: Mr. Hogan's pro-poultry industry comments and pledges are actually deeply hurtful to most Eastern Shore businesses ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13).

    • Compost chicken manure, don't burn it
      Compost chicken manure, don't burn it

      Dan Rodricks' recent column urged the new governor to get a large-scale poultry waste incinerator built on the Eastern Shore ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13). This awful idea has been floated for 15 years now and has gone nowhere despite an array of government...

    • Fix the Conowingo before another Hurricane Agnes hits [Letter]
      Fix the Conowingo before another Hurricane Agnes hits [Letter]

      I read with interest commentator Anirban Basu's article touting what a great asset the Conowingo dam is and how it enhances the lives of all Marylanders ("Support the dam to support Md.," Oct. 13).

    • How about aerators to clean up the bay?
      How about aerators to clean up the bay?

      I just read the article about dredging the Susquehanna River, and I couldn't help thinking back to the Seoul Olympics where they used aerators to clean up their filthy water and they got it clean enough that all of the rowing events were held in very safe water ("Study: Dredging little help...

    • Damming the bay's pollution
      Damming the bay's pollution

      Here's the gist of the recent report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Conowingo Dam: Don't confuse a red herring with a red tide. The notion that all the pollution woes of the Chesapeake Bay could be heaped on one 86-year-old hydroelectric facility on the Lower Susquehanna River was...

    Comments
    Loading